Hupp, D. v. Wheeland, C.
Hupp, D. v. Wheeland, C. No. 1444 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 12, 2017Background
- Parties married in 2001; separated April 23, 2010; one child of the marriage; marriage lasted nine years.
- Wife (Hupp) worked as a teacher’s aide (~$20,000/yr); Husband (Wheeland) was a federal employee (~$58,707 in 2012) with a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) and FERS pension.
- Marital assets valued at roughly $707,000, including the marital home (FMV $225,000; mortgages ~$97,420; equity ~$127,579), Wife’s marital pension ($38,377.98), Husband’s TSP and federal pension, and tangibles (~$14,125).
- Wife had exclusive possession of the marital home for ~5.5 years; fair rental value was stipulated at $1,800/month; mortgage payments by Wife and post‑separation debt payments by Husband were contested in credits.
- Master recommended, and the trial court adopted, an approximately equal (50/50) division of marital assets but calculated a fair‑rental/mortgage credit that skewed the distribution in Husband’s favor; Wife appealed raising several equitable distribution errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hupp) | Defendant's Argument (Wheeland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Master allowed to hear additional evidence after remand | Remand evidence was improper | Updated values near distribution are proper | Court: No abuse; updated values permitted (Oak v. Cooper supports values close to distribution) |
| 2) Overall 50/50 split of marital estate | 50/50 ignored statutory factors and disparate incomes | Master and trial court applied §3502 factors and found 50/50 appropriate | Court: Affirmed 50/50 — trial court and Master sufficiently considered statutory factors |
| 3) Fair rental value credit calculation | Trial court miscalculated credit and double‑credited Husband, skewing division | Husband entitled to rental credit for dispossession; mortgage payments reduce rental credit | Court: Trial court abused discretion in calculation; vacated portion and remanded to reinstate Master’s correct calculation so 50/50 split remains |
| 4) Distribution/tangibles (including Suzuki motorcycle) | Some tangible items mis‑allocated; Wife received only $9,125 in tangibles though Husband admitted additional items | Tangibles allocated by Master; values minimal | Court: Most tangible allocations upheld; two items (blue barrels, Suzuki) belong to Husband but total ~$400 — de minimis, no change to decree |
| 5) Division of pensions and TSP timing | Wife argued for immediate TSP/FERS distribution | Husband argued federal pension should be divided at retirement via COAP; TSP offset used to achieve equalization | Court: Affirmed Master’s approach — defer FERS division via QDRO/COAP at retirement; TSP and other offsets acceptable |
| 6) Alimony | Wife sought alimony based on income disparity and needs | Husband and Master argued Wife can meet reasonable needs and has earning capacity; APL and child support history considered | Court: No alimony awarded; affirmed Master’s reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgante v. Morgante, 119 A.3d 382 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review and deference to master's credibility findings)
- Mundy v. Mundy, 151 A.3d 230 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court discretion in choosing valuation methods to achieve economic justice)
- Oak v. Cooper, 638 A.2d 208 (Pa. 1994) (favoring valuations close to the date of distribution)
- Trembach v. Trembach, 615 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 1992) (rules for fair rental credit and mortgage payment offsets)
- Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194 (Pa. Super. 2004) (guidance on achieving economic justice in equitable distribution)